Kim over at LP is engaged in an interesting but - in my view - ultimately fruitless discussion of the relative merits of Big Brother. Unfortunately, all this is by the by. Big Brother may be socially illuminating, an interesting commentary on class, a reflection of broader Australian cultural trends, etc. I do not quibble with Kim’s account on those points. The problem is its objective quality as television. Yes, I know the bait is live and has hit the water by me making that statement, but even if contestable, it needs to be said.
Corey Delaney is interesting because he made A Currant Affair look like the piece of witless limpdickery that it is. This is nothing to do with the intrinsic merit of anything young Corey may or may have not have done (or be). It is purely relational, a function of his being in the right (wrong?) place at the right (wrong?) time.
The problem with many analyses of popular culture is their failure to appreciate this relational aspect. Of course, popular culture aficionados may well say to me that I am making blind assumptions about quality and merit, and they may be right. However, they are also engaing in what Professor John Gardner calls the philosophical ‘nuclear option’. That’s a denial of both moral objectivity and moral truth, a philosophical skepticism that reckons you’re making an argument ‘just because you think so’, not because there’s any possibility of even attaining the truth. This kind of general moral skepticism - about everything from aesthetics to political virtue - is fundamentally self-defeating. By pretending that Big Brother can be ‘good’ independent of its social effects, it becomes possible to argue that everything is good based on its social effects (or interest). This is clearly not the case, and it’s worth keeping the distinction between Corey Delaney as an independent moral agent, and Corey Delaney as an instance of media incompetance entirely separate.
Big Brother is crap for Bogans. It exists because modern capitalism has given bogans more money than they ever had before (likewise chavs in the UK), and they are now able to express their market preferences. Good for them, I have no quibble. There is no requirment that anyone else needs to take an interest. Scholars and intellectuals in the Roman world ignored the gladiatorial shows, unless they were genuine fans in the objective sense - there is little irony in Martial’s enjoyment of ludi. He went and wrote because he liked, not because he was watching Roman bogans and chavs get their jollies. Poverty - and former poverty - does not make people interesting per se (except, maybe, to economists).
It’s worth keeping in mind.
Note: There’s a selection of my Martial translations available here, for those with strong stomachs.
